Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 336 (HP)

Madan Lal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2002-12-12

M.R.VERMA

body2002
JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. This application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure has been moved by the petitioner/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused' for grant of anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 291 of 2002 dated 7.12.2002 under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh registered at Police Station, West, Shimla. 2. The allegations against the accused in brief are that on 7.12.2002 on receipt of a secret information a police party headed by a police Inspector conducted the search of Tea Still of the accused at Badehri. The accused was present there but boated away on seeing the police party. On search of the Tea Stall, 32 pouches each of 750 ml of liquor 'Sirmaur No. 1' and 152 pouches of 180 ml each of country, liquor meant for sale at Chandigarh were recovered. The liquor so recovered after separating the sample was sealed and taken in possession. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the police report. 4. The learned counsel for the accused has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case and the alleged recovery of the liquor was not made from his possession which was in fact recovered from some culvert near Jasthia Devi at a distance of about ? kilometres from the alleged place of recovery, therefore, he deserves to be released on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the accused is required by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of interrogation and to find out how, from where and from whom the recovered liquor was obtained by the accused and to achieve this purpose his custodial interrogation is necessary. 6. Be it stated at the very outset that it is not the case of the respondent that if released on bail the accused is likely to abscond with a view to evade trial or is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. No recovery is also be made from him. 6. Be it stated at the very outset that it is not the case of the respondent that if released on bail the accused is likely to abscond with a view to evade trial or is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. No recovery is also be made from him. It is also not the case of the State that the accused is habitual of dealing in liquor and any case other than the present case has been registered or is pending investigation or trial against the accused. 7. Against the aforesaid background, if the accused is to be interrogated about the source from where the liquor was procured by him the purpose can be achieved even if the accused is directed to join the investigation for the purpose of his interrogation and custodial interrogation does not seem to be necessary. Therefore, there is no reason to refuse bail, as prayed for by the accused. 8. As a result, this application is allowed and the interim bail order dated 11.12.2002 is made absolute. The bail, however, is subject to the conditions that the accused will join investigation as and when so required by the investigating Officer, shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, shall not indulge in the commission of such offence as is alleged to have been committed by him and shall not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or trial of the case.